BACKGROUND: Just as Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and
John McCain (R-AZ) are pushing a "Kyoto-Lite" anti-global
warming amendment to put greenhouse gas emissions caps on every
major sector of the U.S. economy, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK),
Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, is
upping the ante in the Senate by challenging his colleagues to
consider a key possibility: that not only is the science not
settled that human activities are causing global warming, "but
the debate is shifting away from those who subscribe to global
warming alarmism."

TEN SECOND RESPONSE: It is long past time for a serious debate on
the scientific merits of the theory that human beings are causing
the planet to warm. Senator Inhofe is to be commended for raising
facts some elected officials are afraid to acknowledge.

THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: The McCain-Lieberman proposal, if it were to
become law, would cost tens of billions of dollars, result in
thousands of layoffs and dramatically slow economic growth. It
would be morally wrong for anyone to support such a draconian
proposal without first being certain the cure isn't worse than
the disease -- or even if there is a disease, or that if there
is, that the proposed cure would work.

DISCUSSION:
Senator Inhofe's 12,000-word speech, delivered July 28 on the
Senate floor, is too long to reproduce in full, but deserves
to be widely read. Excerpts include:

Excerpt 1:
I believe it is extremely important for the future of this country
that the facts and the science get a fair hearing. Without proper
knowledge and understanding, alarmists will scare the country
into enacting its ultimate goal: making energy suppression, in
the form of harmful mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse emissions, the official policy of the United
States. Such a policy would induce serious economic harm, especially
for low-income and minority populations.

Excerpt 2:
According to a recent study by the Center for Energy and Economic
Development, sponsored by the National Black Chamber of Commerce
and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, if the U.S.
ratifies Kyoto, or passes domestic climate policies effectively
implementing the treaty, the result would "disproportionately
harm America's minority communities, and place the economic advancement
of millions of U.S. Blacks and Hispanics at risk." Among
the study's key findings: Kyoto will cost 511,000 jobs held by
Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers; poverty
rates for minority families will increase dramatically; and,
because Kyoto will bring about higher energy prices, many minority
businesses will be lost. It is interesting to note that the environmental
left purports to advocate policies based on their alleged good
for humanity, especially for the most vulnerable. Kyoto is no
exception. Yet Kyoto, and Kyoto-like policies developed here
in this body, would cause the greatest harm to the poorest among
us.

Excerpt 3:
Environmental alarmists, as an article of faith, peddle the notion
that climate change is, as Greenpeace put it, "the biggest
environmental threat facing...developing countries." For
one, such thinking runs contrary to the public declaration of
the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development-a program sponsored
by the United Nations-which found that poverty is the number
one threat facing developing countries.

Excerpt 4:
...some parts of the IPCC [UN International Panel on Climate
Change] process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the
facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical
and scientific rigor.

Excerpt 5:
The extreme-case scenario of a 5.8-degree warming, for instance,
rests on an assumption that the whole world will raise its level
of economic activity and per capita energy use to that of the
United States, and that energy use will be carbon intensive.
This scenario is simply ludicrous. This essentially contradicts
the experience of the industrialized world over the last 30 years.
Yet the 5.8-degree figure featured prominently in news stories
because it produced the biggest fear effect.

Excerpt 6:
Extremists will tell you that warming is occurring, but if you
look more closely you see that temperature in 1955 was higher
than temperature in 2000.

Excerpt 7:
The best data collected from satellites validated by balloons
to test the hypothesis of a human-induced global warming from
the release of C02 into the atmosphere shows no meaningful trend
of increasing temperatures, even as the climate models exaggerated
the warmth that ought to have occurred from a build-up in C02.

Excerpt 8:
Even as we discuss whether temperatures will go up or down, we
should ask whether global warming would actually produce the
catastrophic effects its adherents so confidently predict. What
gets obscured in the global warming debate is the fact that carbon
dioxide is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. Numerous
studies have shown that global warming can actually be beneficial
to mankind. Most plants, especially wheat and rice, grow considerably
better when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 works like
a fertilizer and higher temperatures usually further enhance
the CO2 fertilizer effect. In fact the average crop, according
to Dr. John Reilly, of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and
Policy of Global Change, is 30 percent higher in a CO2 enhanced
world.

Excerpt 9:
Over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed
the so-called Heidelberg Appeal, which says that no compelling
evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions. I also point to a 1998 recent survey of state
climatologists, which reveals that a majority of respondents
have serious doubts about whether anthropogenic [human-caused]
emissions of greenhouse gases present a serious threat to climate
stability.

Excerpt 10:
Kyoto's objective has nothing to do with saving the globe. In
fact it is purely political. A case in point: French President
Jacques Chirac said during a speech at The Hague in November
of 2000 that Kyoto represents "the first component of an
authentic global governance." So, I wonder: are the French
going to be dictating U.S. policy? Margot Wallstrom, the EU's
Environment Commissioner, takes a slightly different view, but
one that's instructive about the real motives of Kyoto proponents.
She asserted that Kyoto is about "the economy, about leveling
the playing field for big businesses worldwide."

"McCain and Lieberman Push for New
Anti-Global Warming Legislation," by Amy Ridenour, Ten Second
Response, National Center for Public Policy Research, January
8, 2003, at http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR1803.html

Gerald Marsh, "Climate Change Science?:
National Academy of Sciences Global Warming Report Fails to Live
Up to Its Billing," National Policy Analysis #349, National
Center for Public Policy Research at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA349.html

by Amy Ridenour
President
The National Center for Public Policy Research